If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post. To do so, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please do not post any copyrighted images or content without permission from the owner of those images or content. If you are unsure if an image or content is copyright protected, do not post it. When posting images from Google's image search, be sure to utilize the ability to filter by Usage Rights. This is located under Tools > Usage Rights. Any materials that infringe on any owner's Intellectual Property rights will be promptly removed.

Trump Bans Transgender Troops from Armed Services

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations ó something GOP leaders wouldnít give them.

They turned to Trump, who didnít hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trumpís sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

The president had always planned to scale back President Barack Obama-era policies welcoming such individuals in combat and greenlighting the military to pay for their medical treatment plans. But a behind-the-scenes GOP brawl threatening to tank a Pentagon funding increase and wall construction hastened Trumpís decision.

I feel like it threatens group cohesion. I'd say, at first you don't care who is in the foxhole with you as long as they save your ass. However, there are many times when this is not the case, and can make for some discomfort and awkwardness in the ranks. Plus there is the factor of payment for reassignment surgery among other things.

On the fence with this one. I'd like to see a poll of all active military personnel to see their feelings, and probably abide by that. I care more about the feelings of the majority of the people who risk their lives than the 1% or less who want to serve but might need to be told no. The military isn't the right place to turn all PC, whether we think it's OK or not in normal everyday life.

On the fence with this one. I'd like to see a poll of all active military personnel to see their feelings, and probably abide by that. I care more about the feelings of the majority of the people who risk their lives than the 1% or less who want to serve but might need to be told no. The military isn't the right place to turn all PC, whether we think it's OK or not in normal everyday life.

This is a slippery slope. Soldiers are supposed to follow orders. If you allow their "feelings" to influence who you allow in the ranks, do you also allow their "feelings" to dictate whether or not they execute a mission if they disagree with it's goals or methods?

The military shouldn't be politically correct, it should be Constitutionally correct. Here is what Article 1, Section 8 says about that:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
...

So then, Congress, not the President, should be making the "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".

This group of people suffers from an incredibly high rate of suicide and self-inflicted harm. This is a no-brainer. Why would you want to give advanced weapons training and access to sophisticated weapons platforms to people with a diagnose-able mental illness?

The use of Twitter to announce this was pretty tactless, sure, but it's the right call in my mind.

even if it was the right call, trump should not have declared the policy change without at least letting the military know before hand that the announcement was coming, and to discuss how to implement the change. it is why the military is ignoring the tweet until they have a directive and can figure out the execution

"We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

"How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

"Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

This is a slippery slope. Soldiers are supposed to follow orders. If you allow their "feelings" to influence who you allow in the ranks, do you also allow their "feelings" to dictate whether or not they execute a mission if they disagree with it's goals or methods?

The military shouldn't be politically correct, it should be Constitutionally correct. Here is what Article 1, Section 8 says about that:

So then, Congress, not the President, should be making the "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".

Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia

Right. What if the majority "feel" more comfortable not fighting alongside blacks, or hispanics, or non-Christians? Very, very slippery slope.

I've noticed the left likes to fight against the majority unless we are talking about gross total of votes in Presidential elections.

Really though, fair point. But it wouldn't surprise me if reps in Congress use information and polls like I mentioned. I know I would. Not as an end-all be-all, but as something to go off of in arguably gray areas.

I feel like it threatens group cohesion. I'd say, at first you don't care who is in the foxhole with you as long as they save your ass. However, there are many times when this is not the case, and can make for some discomfort and awkwardness in the ranks. Plus there is the factor of payment for reassignment surgery among other things.

They said the same things about group cohesion and the likes when the military was racially integrated. I don't think that's a fair point to bring up.

also, in terms of cost, it really wouldn't be THAT much, especially compared to what we already spend on in the military. I read recently that the military spends a bunch on viagra prescriptions already. You could certainly argue that neither should be allocated money, but I don't see any uproar about the other part do you?

We have a volunteer fighting force for a reason. Anyone whose trans and joins has more balls (pun not entirely intended) than I ever have had. Who are we to judge?

They said the same things about group cohesion and the likes when the military was racially integrated. I don't think that's a fair point to bring up.

also, in terms of cost, it really wouldn't be THAT much, especially compared to what we already spend on in the military. I read recently that the military spends a bunch on viagra prescriptions already. You could certainly argue that neither should be allocated money, but I don't see any uproar about the other part do you?

We have a volunteer fighting force for a reason. Anyone whose trans and joins has more balls (pun not entirely intended) than I ever have had. Who are we to judge?

I'm torn on this issue, but financial burden really doesn't come into the decision for me. Analysis by the Department of Defense put cost estimates between 3-9 million approx, which is nothing for the DOD.

Able-bodiedness is the only factor that matters here. I have my own thoughts on transgenderism with regard to gender dysphoria as well, but none of that matters in the same way race, religion, and other immutable characteristics don't matter when dressing an army. The only factors that do are physical. Any American who is willing and able to handle the physical tasks of warfare should be allowed to do so.